Talk:Utah State Route 269/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Utah State Route 269/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Done. Rather than integrating that paragraph into the two lead paragraphs, I just moved the paragraph in question to the lead, making three paragraphs. If you'd rather have me incorporate the info in the two original lead paragraphs, just say so.
 * Done. Rather than integrating that paragraph into the two lead paragraphs, I just moved the paragraph in question to the lead, making three paragraphs. If you'd rather have me incorporate the info in the two original lead paragraphs, just say so.


 * B. MoS compliance:
 * Done: Removed bolding, but the major intersections list already is in jctint form, isn't it?
 * It needs the county and city in the box as well.Mitch32contribs 11:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * No it doesn't; see WP:ELG: "This column is optional for routes that are within a single subdivision/location". There's also no basis for requiring the use of jctint to pass GA. --NE2 15:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I guess it's best here to revert it as it was, as it was in compliance in the first place. Hope this is okay, everyone. CL — 15:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * Don't they do so already?
 * Don't they do so already?


 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * I searched on Google News Archive and took a look at the UDOT history PDF again and it looks like the route has been relatively untouched since then.
 * A. Major aspects:
 * I searched on Google News Archive and took a look at the UDOT history PDF again and it looks like the route has been relatively untouched since then.
 * I searched on Google News Archive and took a look at the UDOT history PDF again and it looks like the route has been relatively untouched since then.


 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * I emailed the webmaster of this website to see if I could obtain permission to use the pictures on his website. Will the lack of pictures affect the GAN?
 * No this will not.Mitch32contribs 11:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * I emailed the webmaster of this website to see if I could obtain permission to use the pictures on his website. Will the lack of pictures affect the GAN?
 * No this will not.Mitch32contribs 11:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I emailed the webmaster of this website to see if I could obtain permission to use the pictures on his website. Will the lack of pictures affect the GAN?
 * No this will not.Mitch32contribs 11:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

This article does need some work before Good Article status. Good luck and I'll probably pass once all is fixed.Mitch32contribs 13:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. I've attempted to address your concerns; how does the article look now? CL — 21:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I took care of the city and county in the box. CL — 15:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)